PeeWee checking

Discussion of Minnesota Youth Hockey

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)

Nevertoomuchhockey
Posts: 1138
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:59 pm

Post by Nevertoomuchhockey » Tue Dec 01, 2015 7:09 pm

imlisteningtothefnsong wrote:Quote-
Just because kids can get hurt doing lots of things, doesn't make it ok for them to go on the ice and try to injury another player. If that is all


Very true, but that is not hockey's problem. It is a parent problem, or possibly a coaching problem. Discipline the problems not the sport!!
Hockey lives matter!!!
It's a coaching problem. As in do that cheap s*** again, you sit. And mean it.
It's only a parent problem if my coach encourages it or doesn't stop it in its tracks and I let him keep playing for the guy.
We've all seen too many games at every level where teams who are less talented or just having an off night get dirty and cheap since they have nothing to lose. Coaches need to give them something to lose.
I'd love to see a study on how increased penalty minutes and injuries correlate with margin of spread in the final score.

And IMHO the MSHSL is going to have to set a policy if coaches don't police their own teams. 5 min, 10 min, ejections, all those majors and misconducts should have larger consequences if it's happening to a single player or team every damn game. Believe me, I don't want more MSHSL policy. But the reckless play of some players and teams is becoming institutionalized.

And I've had a child of each gender come up through squirts. They have been learning how to take a check, how to fall into the boards, how to protect the head since week 1 of squirts. But at least here, nothing similar at 10 and 12u.

Wet Paint
Posts: 192
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:23 pm

Post by Wet Paint » Wed Dec 02, 2015 10:11 am

JSR wrote:
zambonidriver wrote:
imlisteningtothefnsong wrote:I went to Bantam game Rosemount vs Spring Lake Park this last weekend. My experience was very interesting. It seems to me that neither the players nor the parents are prepared for body contact. Poor #X for SLP, I will spare him his number but he is one of the dirtiest Bantam players I have seen. No less than 3 times he purposely "tea bagged" Rosemount players. Ask your kid what tea bagged is if you don't know. He was slashing players every time he was contacted. I am guessing it was a coaches kid since he was not disciplined from the coaches. Parents were screaming every time a player was hit. I guess my point is more coaching on giving and receiving body contact is needed for the skaters. Perhaps a video should be required for mom's & dads preseason to let them see that contact is part of the game and a positive part of the game when properly and cleanly administered. Body contact needs to be taught before it is removed from the game.
Part of the problem is you have a bunch of teenage boys who finally get to hit and are obsessed with the big hit and forget about the puck. It is like a kid with a new toy!!! Chippiness has always been a part of the game look at what happened Saturday night between the gophers and huskies. I have been to a lot of bantam practices this year and the work has been on skills and proper contact. Even though there is instruction injury is still a possibility. Our bantam team lost it's best player to a fractured Sternum and he delivered the blow.
You just made a great argument for why it should be started in squirts and not waiting til bantams. If they started in squirts when everyone is young and the same size by the time they got to bantams it wouldn't be a "new toy" any more and they will have had four solid years of proper instruction and getting used to it before they get to bantams where size and strength become such a huge factor.
Those arguments were made before checking was removed from PeeWees and were ignored.

You all are missing the point here. This is more about the number of kids staying in hockey and their money than it is about player safety. When checking was being looked at the main points that were made on the side of removing it was that more kids will stay in hockey and not drop out when they make that transition from PeeWees to Bantams. The more kids who stay in the system the more money USA Hockey and MN Hockey make. They do not want kids dropping out of hockey and taking their money with them.

Rather than put checking back into PeeWees like they should USA Hockey and MN Hockey are going to start the process of removing checking from Bantams because too many kids are dropping out and too many kids are getting hurt. Those of you who like watching girl's hockey are going to be in luck because it won't be long before the boys game looks just like the girls game does now.

jg2112
Posts: 915
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:36 am

Post by jg2112 » Wed Dec 02, 2015 10:21 am

Wet Paint wrote:
JSR wrote:
zambonidriver wrote:
imlisteningtothefnsong wrote:I went to Bantam game Rosemount vs Spring Lake Park this last weekend. My experience was very interesting. It seems to me that neither the players nor the parents are prepared for body contact. Poor #X for SLP, I will spare him his number but he is one of the dirtiest Bantam players I have seen. No less than 3 times he purposely "tea bagged" Rosemount players. Ask your kid what tea bagged is if you don't know. He was slashing players every time he was contacted. I am guessing it was a coaches kid since he was not disciplined from the coaches. Parents were screaming every time a player was hit. I guess my point is more coaching on giving and receiving body contact is needed for the skaters. Perhaps a video should be required for mom's & dads preseason to let them see that contact is part of the game and a positive part of the game when properly and cleanly administered. Body contact needs to be taught before it is removed from the game.
Part of the problem is you have a bunch of teenage boys who finally get to hit and are obsessed with the big hit and forget about the puck. It is like a kid with a new toy!!! Chippiness has always been a part of the game look at what happened Saturday night between the gophers and huskies. I have been to a lot of bantam practices this year and the work has been on skills and proper contact. Even though there is instruction injury is still a possibility. Our bantam team lost it's best player to a fractured Sternum and he delivered the blow.
You just made a great argument for why it should be started in squirts and not waiting til bantams. If they started in squirts when everyone is young and the same size by the time they got to bantams it wouldn't be a "new toy" any more and they will have had four solid years of proper instruction and getting used to it before they get to bantams where size and strength become such a huge factor.
Those arguments were made before checking was removed from PeeWees and were ignored.

You all are missing the point here. This is more about the number of kids staying in hockey and their money than it is about player safety. When checking was being looked at the main points that were made on the side of removing it was that more kids will stay in hockey and not drop out when they make that transition from PeeWees to Bantams. The more kids who stay in the system the more money USA Hockey and MN Hockey make. They do not want kids dropping out of hockey and taking their money with them.

Rather than put checking back into PeeWees like they should USA Hockey and MN Hockey are going to start the process of removing checking from Bantams because too many kids are dropping out and too many kids are getting hurt. Those of you who like watching girl's hockey are going to be in luck because it won't be long before the boys game looks just like the girls game does now.
If this really were to happen (removing checking from Bantams), that would probably kill girls' hockey in MN (most likely destroying what's left of U15), or at least reduce girls' hockey to no more than a "rec" level enterprise. If there was no fear of straight-up checking in the boys' game, most competitive girls would play against boys until high school. It's the major reason girls return to girls hockey after PeeWees.

SCBlueLiner
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:11 pm

Post by SCBlueLiner » Wed Dec 02, 2015 11:03 am

If it is all about the numbers I would be interested in seeing how the retention numbers have changed and increased dramatically since checking was taken out of Pee Wees. Anecdotal evidence for sure, but I can not think of a single player in our association who quit because of checking or stayed on because it was eliminated.

A couple years ago, as I watched our Pee Wees skating around, heads down, smaller kids, I kind of relented on the fact checking had been eliminated and that it was probably a good thing. Now that I am witnessing these players in Bantams I see what a mistake it was. Checking is a skill and the Bantam players today are way behind on learning that skill.

SECoach
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:29 am

Post by SECoach » Wed Dec 02, 2015 2:20 pm

Wet Paint wrote:
JSR wrote:
zambonidriver wrote:
imlisteningtothefnsong wrote:I went to Bantam game Rosemount vs Spring Lake Park this last weekend. My experience was very interesting. It seems to me that neither the players nor the parents are prepared for body contact. Poor #X for SLP, I will spare him his number but he is one of the dirtiest Bantam players I have seen. No less than 3 times he purposely "tea bagged" Rosemount players. Ask your kid what tea bagged is if you don't know. He was slashing players every time he was contacted. I am guessing it was a coaches kid since he was not disciplined from the coaches. Parents were screaming every time a player was hit. I guess my point is more coaching on giving and receiving body contact is needed for the skaters. Perhaps a video should be required for mom's & dads preseason to let them see that contact is part of the game and a positive part of the game when properly and cleanly administered. Body contact needs to be taught before it is removed from the game.
Part of the problem is you have a bunch of teenage boys who finally get to hit and are obsessed with the big hit and forget about the puck. It is like a kid with a new toy!!! Chippiness has always been a part of the game look at what happened Saturday night between the gophers and huskies. I have been to a lot of bantam practices this year and the work has been on skills and proper contact. Even though there is instruction injury is still a possibility. Our bantam team lost it's best player to a fractured Sternum and he delivered the blow.
You just made a great argument for why it should be started in squirts and not waiting til bantams. If they started in squirts when everyone is young and the same size by the time they got to bantams it wouldn't be a "new toy" any more and they will have had four solid years of proper instruction and getting used to it before they get to bantams where size and strength become such a huge factor.
Those arguments were made before checking was removed from PeeWees and were ignored.

You all are missing the point here. This is more about the number of kids staying in hockey and their money than it is about player safety. When checking was being looked at the main points that were made on the side of removing it was that more kids will stay in hockey and not drop out when they make that transition from PeeWees to Bantams. The more kids who stay in the system the more money USA Hockey and MN Hockey make. They do not want kids dropping out of hockey and taking their money with them.

Rather than put checking back into PeeWees like they should USA Hockey and MN Hockey are going to start the process of removing checking from Bantams because too many kids are dropping out and too many kids are getting hurt. Those of you who like watching girl's hockey are going to be in luck because it won't be long before the boys game looks just like the girls game does now.
Presented as if fact, but pure fiction. How many of the workshops, meetings, and conference calls you were in on to allow you to present this information in such a fashion?

JSR
Posts: 1673
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Wed Dec 02, 2015 2:37 pm

SECoach wrote:
Wet Paint wrote:
JSR wrote:
zambonidriver wrote:
imlisteningtothefnsong wrote:I went to Bantam game Rosemount vs Spring Lake Park this last weekend. My experience was very interesting. It seems to me that neither the players nor the parents are prepared for body contact. Poor #X for SLP, I will spare him his number but he is one of the dirtiest Bantam players I have seen. No less than 3 times he purposely "tea bagged" Rosemount players. Ask your kid what tea bagged is if you don't know. He was slashing players every time he was contacted. I am guessing it was a coaches kid since he was not disciplined from the coaches. Parents were screaming every time a player was hit. I guess my point is more coaching on giving and receiving body contact is needed for the skaters. Perhaps a video should be required for mom's & dads preseason to let them see that contact is part of the game and a positive part of the game when properly and cleanly administered. Body contact needs to be taught before it is removed from the game.
Part of the problem is you have a bunch of teenage boys who finally get to hit and are obsessed with the big hit and forget about the puck. It is like a kid with a new toy!!! Chippiness has always been a part of the game look at what happened Saturday night between the gophers and huskies. I have been to a lot of bantam practices this year and the work has been on skills and proper contact. Even though there is instruction injury is still a possibility. Our bantam team lost it's best player to a fractured Sternum and he delivered the blow.
You just made a great argument for why it should be started in squirts and not waiting til bantams. If they started in squirts when everyone is young and the same size by the time they got to bantams it wouldn't be a "new toy" any more and they will have had four solid years of proper instruction and getting used to it before they get to bantams where size and strength become such a huge factor.
Those arguments were made before checking was removed from PeeWees and were ignored.

You all are missing the point here. This is more about the number of kids staying in hockey and their money than it is about player safety. When checking was being looked at the main points that were made on the side of removing it was that more kids will stay in hockey and not drop out when they make that transition from PeeWees to Bantams. The more kids who stay in the system the more money USA Hockey and MN Hockey make. They do not want kids dropping out of hockey and taking their money with them.

Rather than put checking back into PeeWees like they should USA Hockey and MN Hockey are going to start the process of removing checking from Bantams because too many kids are dropping out and too many kids are getting hurt. Those of you who like watching girl's hockey are going to be in luck because it won't be long before the boys game looks just like the girls game does now.
Presented as if fact, but pure fiction. How many of the workshops, meetings, and conference calls you were in on to allow you to present this information in such a fashion?
Which part is fiction? The part that removing it from pee wee's is all about money and retention, and not player safety, is pretty much fact not fiction.... The last paragraph seems like he went off on his own tangent though and I have never heard that before. So maybe that is what you were referring to.

JSR
Posts: 1673
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Wed Dec 02, 2015 2:52 pm

SCBlueLiner wrote:If it is all about the numbers I would be interested in seeing how the retention numbers have changed and increased dramatically since checking was taken out of Pee Wees. Anecdotal evidence for sure, but I can not think of a single player in our association who quit because of checking or stayed on because it was eliminated.

A couple years ago, as I watched our Pee Wees skating around, heads down, smaller kids, I kind of relented on the fact checking had been eliminated and that it was probably a good thing. Now that I am witnessing these players in Bantams I see what a mistake it was. Checking is a skill and the Bantam players today are way behind on learning that skill.
I cannot find information on retention specifically. However here is a link to a chart of USA hockey membership.

http://www.usahockey.com/page/show/8393 ... statistics

Other than the one year anomaly we saw between the 2011-12 and 2012-13 seasons hockey membership in the USA has steadily increased every year. There is no indication from this chart that membership numbers exploded or went up exponentially due to this new rule. Nor does it support drastic decreases year after year. If anything the short term returns suggest anecdotally from this table that the rule has done nothing in regards to retention or increasing numbers in the sport compared to when checking was in place in pee wees. Looks to me like the flow of players and increases in participation are right about the same now as they were before.... :/

Wet Paint
Posts: 192
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:23 pm

Post by Wet Paint » Wed Dec 02, 2015 3:02 pm

JSR wrote:
SECoach wrote:
Wet Paint wrote:
JSR wrote:
zambonidriver wrote:
imlisteningtothefnsong wrote:I went to Bantam game Rosemount vs Spring Lake Park this last weekend. My experience was very interesting. It seems to me that neither the players nor the parents are prepared for body contact. Poor #X for SLP, I will spare him his number but he is one of the dirtiest Bantam players I have seen. No less than 3 times he purposely "tea bagged" Rosemount players. Ask your kid what tea bagged is if you don't know. He was slashing players every time he was contacted. I am guessing it was a coaches kid since he was not disciplined from the coaches. Parents were screaming every time a player was hit. I guess my point is more coaching on giving and receiving body contact is needed for the skaters. Perhaps a video should be required for mom's & dads preseason to let them see that contact is part of the game and a positive part of the game when properly and cleanly administered. Body contact needs to be taught before it is removed from the game.
Part of the problem is you have a bunch of teenage boys who finally get to hit and are obsessed with the big hit and forget about the puck. It is like a kid with a new toy!!! Chippiness has always been a part of the game look at what happened Saturday night between the gophers and huskies. I have been to a lot of bantam practices this year and the work has been on skills and proper contact. Even though there is instruction injury is still a possibility. Our bantam team lost it's best player to a fractured Sternum and he delivered the blow.
You just made a great argument for why it should be started in squirts and not waiting til bantams. If they started in squirts when everyone is young and the same size by the time they got to bantams it wouldn't be a "new toy" any more and they will have had four solid years of proper instruction and getting used to it before they get to bantams where size and strength become such a huge factor.
Those arguments were made before checking was removed from PeeWees and were ignored.

You all are missing the point here. This is more about the number of kids staying in hockey and their money than it is about player safety. When checking was being looked at the main points that were made on the side of removing it was that more kids will stay in hockey and not drop out when they make that transition from PeeWees to Bantams. The more kids who stay in the system the more money USA Hockey and MN Hockey make. They do not want kids dropping out of hockey and taking their money with them.

Rather than put checking back into PeeWees like they should USA Hockey and MN Hockey are going to start the process of removing checking from Bantams because too many kids are dropping out and too many kids are getting hurt. Those of you who like watching girl's hockey are going to be in luck because it won't be long before the boys game looks just like the girls game does now.
Presented as if fact, but pure fiction. How many of the workshops, meetings, and conference calls you were in on to allow you to present this information in such a fashion?
Which part is fiction? The part that removing it from pee wee's is all about money and retention, and not player safety, is pretty much fact not fiction.... The last paragraph seems like he went off on his own tangent though and I have never heard that before. So maybe that is what you were referring to.
Call me a cynic or worse. Yes, the last paragraph is pure speculation but you have to admit that given the line of thought and the arguments that were made to remove checking from PeeWees you can see them trying to go that route. All along people on this board were saying exactly what is being said now. Better to have the smaller more equal in size and ability kids learning to check than to have what is happening now which is basically men hitting boys. I went to a few of the northern BN games at pretty much all levels and the thing that struck me the most was the size differentials involved. I am not one of those people who think that hitting is the answer to everything in hockey but it is a tool to be used and perfected. I would be pretty leery about having a kid on the BN team who was just hitting puberty so he is about 5'4" tall and weighs in at about 125 pounds going up against some of those 6'2" 200lb plus kids who have spent a year learning to hit and who like to hit. Clean hit or not with that size differential somebody is going to get hurt, and they are. In my humble opinion they need to reverse that ruling and put checking back into PeeWees and then crack down on it. Come out and lay out the rules very very clearly and enforce the crap out of them.

imlisteningtothefnsong
Posts: 321
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:16 am

Post by imlisteningtothefnsong » Wed Dec 02, 2015 6:01 pm

Quote] I would be pretty leery about having a kid on the BN team who was just hitting puberty so he is about 5'4" tall and weighs in at about 125 pounds going up against some of those 6'2" 200lb plus kids who have spent a year learning to hit and who like to hit. Clean hit or not with that size differential somebody is going to get hurt, and they are.

I disagree with the size and puberty issues. I won't mention the league but it's filled with full grown Canadian men most over 6' & 200lbs and the leading scorer on my kids team is a 98' standing 5'6" and 137lbs. It's awareness, it's self preservation, it's incredible puck skills which allow his head to be on a swivel. I have seen him get blown up, but he knew it was coming and was ready for the physics test. Survival is a learned skill just like crossovers. Not slamming my favorite 99' Sammy W. But he shares a similar physique and puck skills and survival skills. If we teach it they will learn.

Hockeyfan2000
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 5:30 pm

Post by Hockeyfan2000 » Wed Dec 02, 2015 8:14 pm

I have to disagree - there is a big difference between a small player playing at a higher level who has been taking checks for years and kids who are 13 years old and taking checks for the very first time. The size difference does matter. You are comparing apples and oranges.[/quote]

Section 8 guy
Posts: 540
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 9:04 pm

Post by Section 8 guy » Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:04 am

Wet Paint wrote:Those arguments were made before checking was removed from PeeWees and were ignored.

You all are missing the point here. This is more about the number of kids staying in hockey and their money than it is about player safety. When checking was being looked at the main points that were made on the side of removing it was that more kids will stay in hockey and not drop out when they make that transition from PeeWees to Bantams. The more kids who stay in the system the more money USA Hockey and MN Hockey make. They do not want kids dropping out of hockey and taking their money with them.

Rather than put checking back into PeeWees like they should USA Hockey and MN Hockey are going to start the process of removing checking from Bantams because too many kids are dropping out and too many kids are getting hurt. Those of you who like watching girl's hockey are going to be in luck because it won't be long before the boys game looks just like the girls game does now.
Do you really believe this?

Section 8 guy
Posts: 540
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 9:04 pm

Post by Section 8 guy » Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:11 am

By the way, this is a very simple issue. I could tell you five to seven minutes into a Bantam game if it is going to be a high risk injury game or not. If the ref makes the appropriate calls, there will likely be no problems. If the ref appears to enjoy watching blow up hits by 13 you and swallows his whistle, things have a good chance of getting out of hand.

If the adults in the room act like adults the current checking rules are the right ones. And it's entirely about development. It's not about money.

Wet Paint
Posts: 192
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:23 pm

Post by Wet Paint » Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:24 am

Section 8 guy wrote:By the way, this is a very simple issue. I could tell you five to seven minutes into a Bantam game if it is going to be a high risk injury game or not. If the ref makes the appropriate calls, there will likely be no problems. If the ref appears to enjoy watching blow up hits by 13 you and swallows his whistle, things have a good chance of getting out of hand.

If the adults in the room act like adults the current checking rules are the right ones. And it's entirely about development. It's not about money.
Most injuries that I see in hockey are not from those big blow up hits that you bring up. It is in front of the net or in the corner.

I disagree with you and I do believe most of what I said (the last paragraph was sort of tongue in cheek but would not surprise me) in that post. The physics involved prove my point. Legal hit, clean hit or what ever, when a 200+ pound kid who is 6'+ goes into the corners or in front of the net with a much smaller kid the smaller kid is at risk. Look at the teams around you, half of thos kids are small kids. They skate with their heads down (no matter how much coaching they get) through traffic, they go into the corners because they are not worried about contact and etc. Just the mechanics of it puts those kids are risk whether or not the hit is clean. What are you going to do? Tell the big kids you can't hit the little kids? Make the contact in BN so tightly controlled and so heavily monitored that the big kids don't hit anymore for fear of a penalty? That removes a tool from the big kid that is a legal tool and then to make matters worse it creates a false sense of security for the big and small kids on the ice. So effectively you have removed checking from BN level. Go to high school with that total lack of experience and see what happens. 18 year old men who have been working out for years and who hknow how to skate and hit against small 15/16 year olds who are completely new to it...........

Yikes.

Checking needs to go back into PeeWees and needs to be taught and controlled.

JSR
Posts: 1673
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:46 pm

Wet Paint wrote:
Section 8 guy wrote:By the way, this is a very simple issue. I could tell you five to seven minutes into a Bantam game if it is going to be a high risk injury game or not. If the ref makes the appropriate calls, there will likely be no problems. If the ref appears to enjoy watching blow up hits by 13 you and swallows his whistle, things have a good chance of getting out of hand.

If the adults in the room act like adults the current checking rules are the right ones. And it's entirely about development. It's not about money.
Most injuries that I see in hockey are not from those big blow up hits that you bring up. It is in front of the net or in the corner.

I disagree with you and I do believe most of what I said (the last paragraph was sort of tongue in cheek but would not surprise me) in that post. The physics involved prove my point. Legal hit, clean hit or what ever, when a 200+ pound kid who is 6'+ goes into the corners or in front of the net with a much smaller kid the smaller kid is at risk. Look at the teams around you, half of thos kids are small kids. They skate with their heads down (no matter how much coaching they get) through traffic, they go into the corners because they are not worried about contact and etc. Just the mechanics of it puts those kids are risk whether or not the hit is clean. What are you going to do? Tell the big kids you can't hit the little kids? Make the contact in BN so tightly controlled and so heavily monitored that the big kids don't hit anymore for fear of a penalty? That removes a tool from the big kid that is a legal tool and then to make matters worse it creates a false sense of security for the big and small kids on the ice. So effectively you have removed checking from BN level. Go to high school with that total lack of experience and see what happens. 18 year old men who have been working out for years and who hknow how to skate and hit against small 15/16 year olds who are completely new to it...........

Yikes.

Checking needs to go back into PeeWees and needs to be taught and controlled.
I'm 100% with wet paint on this one. Had nothing to do with development and the proof is seen every night where I live

JSR
Posts: 1673
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:26 pm

Post by JSR » Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:47 pm

imlisteningtothefnsong wrote:Quote] I would be pretty leery about having a kid on the BN team who was just hitting puberty so he is about 5'4" tall and weighs in at about 125 pounds going up against some of those 6'2" 200lb plus kids who have spent a year learning to hit and who like to hit. Clean hit or not with that size differential somebody is going to get hurt, and they are.

I disagree with the size and puberty issues. I won't mention the league but it's filled with full grown Canadian men most over 6' & 200lbs and the leading scorer on my kids team is a 98' standing 5'6" and 137lbs. It's awareness, it's self preservation, it's incredible puck skills which allow his head to be on a swivel. I have seen him get blown up, but he knew it was coming and was ready for the physics test. Survival is a learned skill just like crossovers. Not slamming my favorite 99' Sammy W. But he shares a similar physique and puck skills and survival skills. If we teach it they will learn.
The exception to the rule does not prove or disprove the rule. Sorry man but the masses involved are the ones at risk, not the exceptional exception to the rule.

imlisteningtothefnsong
Posts: 321
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:16 am

Post by imlisteningtothefnsong » Thu Dec 03, 2015 6:17 pm

JSR wrote: The exception to the rule does not prove or disprove the rule. Sorry man but the masses involved are the ones at risk, not the exceptional exception to the rule.

Very good point!! To get to that level with those wee frames are the exceptional ones. But their numbers are growing. The game is cleaning up and speeding up.

Section 8 guy
Posts: 540
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 9:04 pm

Post by Section 8 guy » Thu Dec 03, 2015 6:49 pm

The comment has been made that they need to have checking in PeeWees so kids can learn how to check properly when smaller and can learn how to move up ice with their head up so they can learn to avoid hits. The fact that 11-12 year olds can't multitask is the exact science that contributed to getting support for the change. They aren't capable of focusing on multiple things at the same time at that age......I.e. Stick handling and not getting drilled. They aren't built in PeeWees to learn what people are suggesting they would learn.

I get both sides of the discussion. It's reasonable to believe that checking in PeeWees makes sense. The science says otherwise........and I'm not sure the size differences aren't actually greater in PeeWees than they are in Bantams......but ok. I'm still going with the science over someone's anecdotal observations.

That said, most of the concerns expressed about the risks to smaller kids in Bantams can be reduced if officials actively call the penalties that should be called. Eliminated?....no. Reduced?......yes. And no I don't mean calling it like girls hockey. I mean call the penalties that should be called when a kids focus is more on blowing someone up than it is on separating them from the puck. I couldn't disagree more that more injuries come in front of the net than they do from blow up hits.

The refs can impact this whole issue. Big time. And if you don't think so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

And if someone truly believes this is about USA Hockey somehow making more money......which has been documented they aren't.......well, you must be a blast at parties. ](*,) :roll:

imlisteningtothefnsong
Posts: 321
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:16 am

Post by imlisteningtothefnsong » Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:01 pm

QouteSection8]..but ok. I'm still going with the science over someone's anecdotal observations.


Not disagreeing per se, but I don't see any science in your post. I see many kids multitasking both on and off the ice. I am no scientist but kids can be taught to stick handle with heads up.

Section 8 guy
Posts: 540
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 9:04 pm

Post by Section 8 guy » Thu Dec 03, 2015 9:28 pm

I'm not going to get into regurgitating all of the science.but you can find it by googling Dr Stuart Peewee Checking. I think when you read his information it's fairly obvious holding off on all out checking until Bantams is pretty much a no brainer. There's a reason that both the U.S. And Canada arrived at the same conclusion even though they are two completely separate bodies. Especially with Canada typically being so enamored with physical play.

The thing that generally gets lost, both in these discussions and in the real life application of things, is that they encourage Plenty of physical play in Squirts and PeeWees.....just not all out checking.

observer
Posts: 2225
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:45 pm

Post by observer » Fri Dec 04, 2015 8:30 am

My opinion is they should be checking in PeeWees. I believe waiting until bantam is dangerous.

Not mentioned this year but I've always found youth football players to be good checkers and a number of them really enjoy it too. They enter the hockey season after just completing a few months of blasting people. Better than a single 1 hour checking clinic.

I also think refs should speak with both teams before game and explain exactly how they see things and will call the game. Be the leader and skip the confrontational relationship with players and coaches and let them know how it will go. Then there will be to fewer to no questions during the game and greatly reduce tension. Ref just skates over and says, "pretty sure we discussed that before the game, weren't you listening."

zooomx
Posts: 463
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 3:34 pm

Post by zooomx » Fri Dec 04, 2015 9:02 am

Section 8 guy wrote:I'm not going to get into regurgitating all of the science.but you can find it by googling Dr Stuart PeeWee Checking. I think when you read his information it's fairly obvious holding off on all out checking until Bantams is pretty much a no brainer. There's a reason that both the U.S. And Canada arrived at the same conclusion even though they are two completely separate bodies. Especially with Canada typically being so enamored with physical play.

The thing that generally gets lost, both in these discussions and in the real life application of things, is that they encourage Plenty of physical play in Squirts and PeeWees.....just not all out checking.
Great takes on this subject.

Talk about beating a dead horse. I think USA Hockey did a fabulous job explaining why the checking rule needed to change. Just like the ADM topic, they spent money on the research, tapping into experts all over the country to make the right decision based upon safety and development. What I think is funny is that I have not heard a single quality coach complain about this in the past year or so. They all seem fine with it now and have moved on. Wish others could.

Checking in squirts would absolutely be ludicrous. Anyone who suggests this is just being silly. Just as silly as the "Mites have to play full ice games to develop" argument. Read the freaking science. Don't just skim and cherry pick what you don't like. Read the science with an open mind and it is hard not to get it. If you don't get it, you are not giving it a chance.

Look... if the checking rule change actually results in more injuries, like some of you seem to think it will, the data will support it and USA Hockey will address it. Until then, how about we do our very best with game has it currently structured and move on?

imlisteningtothefnsong
Posts: 321
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:16 am

Post by imlisteningtothefnsong » Fri Dec 04, 2015 3:37 pm

Look... if the checking rule change actually results in more injuries, like some of you seem to think it will, the data will support it and USA Hockey will address it. Until then, how about we do our very best with game has it currently structured and move on?[/quote]

The question will always linger... Are there are more injuries is it because of size differences in bantams or because the skill was never taught at an early age. Cheap shots need to be addressed at every level. I certainly don't have any scientific answers to that question, but I do not want to see boys hockey become girls hockey. I would check the revenues generated by each to see if I am in the minority.

Section 8 guy
Posts: 540
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 9:04 pm

Post by Section 8 guy » Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:53 pm

imlisteningtothefnsong wrote:. The question will always linger... Are there are more injuries is it because of size differences in bantams or because the skill was never taught at an early age. Cheap shots need to be addressed at every level. I certainly don't have any scientific answers to that question, but I do not want to see boys hockey become girls hockey. I would check the revenues generated by each to see if I am in the minority.
Make sure to compare revenues of the NBA vs the WNBA while you are at it. No checking on either side there right?

I don't want to see men's hockey become girls hockey either, but the game as a whole may want to figure out that the purpose of checking is to separate the man from the puck, not to destroy the other guy, or hockey will be looking at the same uncertain future that football is before too long.

To your first point, I don't think we are going to see injuries go up....if nothing else because you just took the number of kids that are checking in youth hockey and cut it by slightly more than half. They could go up a bit at the Bantam level and would likely still go down overall.

imlisteningtothefnsong
Posts: 321
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:16 am

Post by imlisteningtothefnsong » Fri Dec 04, 2015 7:54 pm

What is NBA? 8) :lol:

Nevertoomuchhockey
Posts: 1138
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:59 pm

Post by Nevertoomuchhockey » Fri Dec 04, 2015 10:56 pm

Have you ever watched a squirt Choice league practice? They are practicing how to "take" a check by age 9. Girls and boys.

Post Reply